User talk:2600:1700:8680:E900:DD27:F31A:E2AE:3EC6

Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8680:E900:0:0:0:0/64

 * Note for reviewing admin - I believe this refers to my previous procedural decline at User talk:2600:1700:8680:E900:8D38:412:2186:51A4. As I've already reviewed once, I shall let another admin take this up. O Still Small Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) 09:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

If editors refuse to discuss a change to an article while insisting that change get made, wouldn't that constitute edit warring? At what point did I refuse to discuss that particular change to the article? If I did not commit edit warring by violating 3RR, how did I?

Also, why did you de-format my writing?

2600:1700:8680:E900:DD27:F31A:E2AE:3EC6 (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not "de format" any writing; I closed your initial unblock request after reviewing it. You are free to make another, as you have. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * strange that you say that. 2600:1700:8680:E900:DD27:F31A:E2AE:3EC6 (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I now see what you are saying. I copy-pasted the template with your language in it, the formatting does not carry over. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah no problem, thank you for telling me as well as thank you for explaining your decision further as I asked : 3
 * 2600:1700:8680:E900:DD27:F31A:E2AE:3EC6 (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8680:E900:0:0:0:0/64 2
(Unblock request moved to: User talk:2600:1700:8680:E900:0:0:0:0/64. Please close.)

Telling me I didn't get blocked for 3RR, doesn't tell me why I got blocked. What criteria for edit-warring have I fulfilled and how?

Standard practice should suggest you restate the reason and evidence for a block when you deny an appeal.

2600:1700:8680:E900:DD27:F31A:E2AE:3EC6 (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

As WP:EW states, "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times". An edit war "occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". 331dot (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:EW states this condition to what you said:
 * "(a potentially controversial change) may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle.
 * An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts."
 * I had not broken the BRD cycle, yet the BRD cycle had broke constituting an edit-war. Administrator duration guidelines had not gotten followed. No attempt to mediate got made. No one suggested a means for conflict resolution, viable or otherwise. No one asked the other participants not to participate in that war. I participated in that war, but only other participants refusing to discuss asked me not to. I think blocking me to end that war without first requiring everyone discuss, ended the war by destroy the city getting sacked.
 * 2600:1700:8680:E900:DD27:F31A:E2AE:3EC6 (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you going to tell them who you are more clearly so they can look at the edits of your account and judge whether IP socking has taken place? It has. I'll give further evidence after you state who you are. Then the dialog with the admins will be more meaningful. I had my reasons for not making it a checkuser block or blocking your account. I did not place IP socking in the block log on purpose; it was not something created to move the goal posts on you but the thing is that the warnings and problems that belong to your IPs also belong to your account in my eyes and the effect is cumulative. You don't get to dodge scrutiny here.


 * Reply to User talk:2600:1700:8680:E900:EC32:3C1B:327B:6990. "Literally, as far as I can tell only I have posted on Talk:Suicide as an IP" Nope. You have used your account sometimes and sometimes as IPs. For you to get any kind of successful appeal, you will need to name your account and give consent to associate your IPs to that account...none of this is going to make sense to admins unless they understand the full situation. I'm not going to continue to debate with you about that because it is necessary if you are appealing to other non-checkuser admins. They aren't going to unblock you or have anything to base the remainder of this case on if they don't have the full picture. How could they?

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't block your account and I will allow you to post using it to WP:AN to challenge the IP blocks, provided that your consent is given to associate the account and IPs. Then the community will be able to review the situation fairly. They may judge whether there is IP socking among other things.
 * , I had already replied above. :)


 * So, from what it sounds like, it is alleged that both your account, and IP made edits to the talkpage in question. Do you dispute this? If not - why edit the same page with both? SQL Query me!  06:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)